1) Warning for those with key fobs. These work wirelessly and, like all wireless devices, can be hacked. A while back, after hearing about this type of theft, we bought cases with metallic lining. (https://silent-pocket.com/pages/key-fob-guard-protector-faraday-key-fob-case-rfid-key-case) When fobs are in them, we cannot open a car door or start the car. I wish the article said what type of “protectors” these people were using inside their homes.

Three high-end vehicles stolen from Ottawa couple’s driveway since June

“In each case, the cars were locked, and the wireless fobs that could be used to open them were tucked securely away in protectors inside their home.

Marnie Bennett, a neighbour who also had her Lexus stolen, told CTV Ottawa that police suspect a ring of international thieves that steals the cars and then ships them elsewhere around the world is responsible for the recent wave of thefts.

The thieves appear to be using a device called a “relay box,” that searches for, finds and then relays a signal from a wireless key fob inside the victim’s home. The signal is then transmitted to a second device held near the car, tricking the car into thinking that the fob is present. It unlocks, and the thieves are able to start the car and drive off with it.”

People are asking for information about moving the smeter from the side of the home to reduce the RF as well as the fire hazard. If anyone has done this, would you please share any advice you might have, info re costs, etc. Please email me at:

3) The concern about Huawei being a Chinese “hacker”, a security risk, etc. is not new. A member sent me this article from 2012 in which the security risk is suspected to rest with the engineers who are called in to fix Huawei’s apparently deliberately shoddy equipment. I don’t know if the situation is the same now, but I believe the risk rests with the equipment, too. Perhaps Huawei had to become more efficient at building bugs into the equipment once people learned about their engineers!

Whatever the case, why is Telus being allowed to partner with Huawei? Please write to your MPs: [http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/z/canada-contact-e-mail-lists/]. It’s far easier to invade and attack a grid if it is filled with the attacker’s equipment and the attacker has had full access, as partner, in building the grid. Still no response from my MP, Randall Garrison, NDP.

“People are right to be concerned about National Security but only because Huawei engineers could gain access to a lot of data about the telecommunications infrastructure that underpins modern life. This is the same a security reconnaissance for “cyber attack”.”

As a person whose wife suffered the life altering, agonizing consequences of EHS, for almost 10 years, this poorly researched piece left me seriously questioning the professional capacity of this woefully misinformed reporter.

“Our mission is to inform, to reveal, to contribute to the understanding of issues of public interest and to encourage citizens to participate in our free and democratic society.” – Treena Wood

“To inform”:

The reporter failed miserably to “inform” the public of the doctors’ science-based perspective on EHS the family brought forth. Instead, she chose to add insult to injury by depicting them in a most unfavorable, demeaning fashion.

“Public interest”:

If your reporter would have taken the time to speak to the family, free of any preconceptions of her personal love/addiction towards wireless technology, she would have learned that school boards forbid any parent to measure the WiFi electrosmog radiation in classrooms to which their children are exposed to, day after day. This involuntary non-stop radiation exposure takes place without any informed consent of the child, nor it’s guardians, in violation of the Nuremberg Code of Ethics, to which Canada is a signee. Is this how our “free and democratic society” should behave? Why are parents refused informed consent?

Your reporter could have “informed” the public that WiFi technology was imposed on the unsuspecting public, without prior biological testing nor any governmental scrutiny, but most importantly, that no science exists, anywhere, proclaiming safety for children when exposed to WiFi radiation.

If Lindsay would have been a diligent journalist, she could have “informed” the public that The American Academy of Pediatrics is: “calling for the adoption of the Precautionary Principal by protecting children and pregnant woman from radiation emitted by cell phones emitted by cell phones and wireless devices.”

A quick internet search would have brought vital information to light, your audience deserves to know, such as the recommendations of the Parliamentary Health Committee in Ottawa, in 2015, regarding wireless technology. How could a good CBC journalist have missed this?

HESA 2015 Recommendations on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians:

RECOMMENDATION 1

That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the health departments of the provinces and territories, examine existing cancer data collection methods to improve the collection of information relating to wireless device use and cancer.

RECOMMENDATION 2

That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.

RECOMMENDATION 3

That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace (as well as schools).

RECOMMENDATION 4

That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivityto ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.

RECOMMENDATION 5

That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

RECOMMENDATION 6

That Health Canada ensure the openness and transparency of its processes for the review of Safety Code 6, so that that all Canadians have an opportunity to be informed about the evidence considered or excluded in such reviews, that outside experts are provided full information when doing independent reviews, and that the scientific rationale for any change is clearly communicated.

RECOMMENDATION 7

That the Government of Canada establish a system for Canadians to report potential adverse reactions to radiofrequency fields.

RECOMMENDATION 8

That an independent scientific body recognized by Health Canada examine whether measures taken and guidelines provided in other countries, such as France and Israel, to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations, including infants, and young children in the school environment, to radiofrequencies should be adopted in Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 9

That the Government of Canada develop an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, in key environments such as the school and home to ensure that Canadian families and children are reducing risks related to radiofrequency exposure.

RECOMMENDATION 10

That Health Canada conduct a comprehensive review of all existing literature relating to radiofrequency fields and carcinogenicity based on international best practices.

RECOMMENDATION 11

That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into the link between radiofrequency fields and potential health effects such as cancer, genetic damage, infertility, impairment to development and behaviour, harmful effects to eyes and on the brain, cardiovascular, biological and biochemical effects.

RECOMMENDATION 12

That the Government of Canada and manufacturers consider policy measures regarding the marketing of radiation emitting devices to children under the age of 14, in order to ensure they are aware of the health risks and how they can be avoided.

Does this read like there is nothing to worry about? Certainly ‘Recommendation 5’ should have been mentioned in her story.

“We provide professional judgment based on facts and expertise. We do not promote any particular point of view on matters of public debate.” – Treena Wood

Why did Lindsay omit relevant scientific information such as the ‘HESA 2015’ recommendations?

May I inquire as to the nature of Ms. Lindsay’s “expertise” in reporting on matters of public health?

Since I far too often witnessed my wife’s needless suffering because of electro hypersensitivity, caused by the uncontrolled explosion of untested wireless technology, I can say with certainty that your reporter Ms. Lindsay made a spectacular hatchet job of her story by failing to provide any meaningful information for your audience, nor bothering to commit to even the most fundamental level of research as is commonly expected of a CBC reporter.

Electro hypersensitivity can strike anyone, at any age, as happened to my wife. EHS is a natural biological response of the body to an unnatural environment.

The CBC used to set high standards of journalistic excellence, free of corporate interests. Why has this changed? Is the CBC unwilling to investigate the blatant corporate cronyism which has infiltrated governments, especially Health Canada, where scientific dwelling in the past is encouraged by the powerful telecom lobby?

Will the CBC become like privately owned media, where corporate interests supersede journalistic integrity?

On August 1, 2018, I replied to Ms. Wood’s letter, to which I have not received a response at this time.

Your complaint to the Values and Ethics Commissioner was forwarded to me by CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin on July 24, 2018 in regards to Bethany Lindsay’s story on July 17, 2018 detailing a decision by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the case of a family’s fight to have part of a school in Saanich designated “wifi free.”

In your letter to our reporter Bethany Lindsay, you say her story was “unfortunately not well researched and void of journalistic balance.” You tell Ms. Lindsay that if she “had been diligent in your research regarding electro hypersensitivity, and the dangers of wireless technologies, especially for children, you would have learned of” deep concerns about EMF technology. You suggest a nefarious link between the BC Human Rights Tribunal and Canada’s telecommunications companies, and urge the CBC to “do an investigative story on the perils of wireless technologies.” You also ask Ms. Lindsay to “apologize to the family in your last report.”

As the News Director for CBC British Columbia, I am happy to respond to your concerns.

Our mission is to inform, to reveal, to contribute to the understanding of issues of public interest and to encourage citizens to participate in our free and democratic society.

We provide professional judgment based on facts and expertise. We do not promote any particular point of view on matters of public debate.

I regret that you are disappointed by the CBC in this instance. The debate around wireless technologies and the consequences to human health can be a heated one, and one that you clearly care passionately about. I fully understand why you would want a reporter to explore that debate as part of the entire story, and as a way of reaching a more complete version of the truth.

With respect, though, in this instance our reporter was not tasked with investigating all the facts in this Tribunal case. She was reporting on what the Tribunal ruled. Part of our job is to share with our audience the findings of our public institutions, including the BC Human Rights Tribunal. That is all we did here. For better or worse, we invest in tribunals to determine facts and findings in various disputes, and reporting on the results is a form of responsible journalism, much the same as reporting on a judgement in a court case or a ruling from a parole board. You may not agree with the decision, but in the context of the Tribunal ruling and the member’s comments, we reported the situation accurately.

I don’t know that we will choose to revisit this story and investigate the facts around EMFs and any links to adverse health effects or the interests of the telecommunications industry. But if we do, of course we would want to speak to as many people as possible.

Finally, it is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with my response, you may wish to ask the CBC Ombudsman to review the matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC’s journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by telephone at 416-205-2978, or by mail at Box 500, Terminal A,Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca.